Obama: America now recognizes Syria’s opposition as the legitimate representative of the Syria people

posted at 9:21 pm on December 11, 2012 by Allahpundit

This is being sold as a morale booster for Syria’s rebels as they press in to Damascus, but it’s really O’s way of justifying deeper U.S. intervention going forward as the country falls to pieces. See, it’s okay to get involved because there are now pro-western moderate Syrian leaders running the show n’ stuff:

“We’ve made a decision that the Syrian Opposition Coalition is now inclusive enough, is reflective and representative enough of the Syrian population that we consider them the legitimate representative of the Syrian people in opposition to the Assad regime,” Obama said…

“Obviously, with that recognition comes responsibilities,” Obama said of the young coalition. “To make sure that they organize themselves effectively, that they are representative of all the parties, [and] that they commit themselves to a political transition that respects women’s rights and minority rights.”…

“Not everybody who’s participating on the ground in fighting Assad are people who we are comfortable with,” Obama told Walters. “There are some who, I think, have adopted an extremist agenda, an anti-U.S. agenda, and we are going to make clear to distinguish between those elements.”

He’s referring at the end there to Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian jihadi group whom the State Department designated as a terrorist outfit earlier today. That move was a precursor to tonight’s announcement recognizing the Syrian Opposition Council; O needed to preempt the inevitable questions about whether we’re getting in bed with terrorists here by creating some sort of lame narrative in which we’re friends with the “good” rebels while ardently opposed to the “bad.” Fun fact about the SOC: It’s less than a month old, and was obviously cobbled together by western nations and its Arab allies precisely in order to put a face of moderation on the Syrian rebellion. Politically, that makes it much easier for the U.S. and Europe to ramp up aid to the less savory characters battling Assad’s troops in the field. In fact, the Independent reported just last night that plans are in the works to provide air and naval power to the rebels as they make their final push to the capital (and beyond) to try to finish Assad off. That’s what this is really about. The west is now convinced that the rebels’ battlefield momentum is irreversible, which means it’s time to make friends with them and to do what we can to make the terrible end to the war as quick and decisive as possible. The longer the battle for Damascus drags on, the more desperate Assad and his troops are likely to get, which potentially means chemical warfare and lord knows what else. If the U.S. and Europe act now, maybe they’ll earn some goodwill and a bit of leverage with whatever nightmarish regime succeeds Assad. That won’t keep the Islamists out of power but maybe it’ll convince them to hand over some of the remnants of Assad’s chemical arsenal.

A few obvious questions. One: Are we sure the rebels are on the brink of bringing down Assad? They may dislodge him from power over most of the country, but not all of it. CSM:

The most likely option, however, and one that appears already to be under way, is for the regime and the core of the army and security forces to retreat to the Alawite-populated mountains on the Mediterranean coast. Diplomatic sources say that there are unconfirmed reports that the regime is planning to register all Sunnis who live in the coastal cities of Tartous, Banias, and Latakia which could potentially form part of an Alawite-dominated enclave. The coastal cities are predominantly Sunni-populated while the mountain hinterland is mainly Alawite…

A rump regime well-entrenched into the mountain villages defended by the Alawite core of the army and security services equipped with armor, artillery, air power and possibly even chemical and biological weapons could buy the Assads some breathing space during a likely period of chaos caused by a sudden leadership vacuum in Damascus. But it is questionable whether it would provide a long-term solution for the Assad clan’s survival.

Are the SOC and its western benefactors going to oversee a brutal Sunni assault on the Alawite mountain strongholds in order to finish off Assad and his supporters? What’s the game plan to stop the inevitable ethnic cleansing that’ll follow once it begins? That brings us to question two: What evidence is there that the rebels in the field who are doing the fighting will respect the authority of the SOC? The whole point of the Benghazi attack is that the “moderate,” pro-western Libyan government has no control over the militias that helped oust Qaddafi. Looks like we’re headed for the same clusterfark here, but on a grander, much more dangerous scale. Jihadist fighters have already said explicitly that they won’t recognize the SOC, in fact; meanwhile, the new military council elected by rebel groups is dominated by Salafists and members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Are they likely to take orders from a pro-western leadership council that counts as one of its vice presidents a secular feminist? Realistically, there’s no way the SOC is going to hold things together. And the White House knows it:

Inside the Obama administration, Syria is now likened by some to a second Somalia — only at the heart of the Middle East, and with the world’s third-largest stockpile of chemical weapons. One official recently described a near-term future in which the current, two-sided civil war breaks down into a free-for-all in which Sunni forces fight Kurds and each other as well as the Alawi remnants of Bashar al-Assad’s army; where the al-Qaeda branch known as Jabhat al-Nusra gains control over substantial parts of the country; and where the danger of chemical weapons use comes not just from the regime but from any other force that overruns a chemical weapons depot…

The U.S. view of how its strategy will work depends on an extraordinary cascade of unlikely events. First, the [SOC] will gain control over most of the rebel forces. Then Russia or dissident Alawites will force Assad aside. Then there will be negotiations leading to agreement on a transitional government.

A slightly more likely scenario is that the West will get lucky and Assad’s regime will soon collapse in Damascus. In the resulting vacuum, the [SOC] will gain recognition from the outside world, and most of the rebel forces and Syria will follow the shaky path of Libya, with a weak government coexisting with a panoply of militias — some of them allied to al-Qaeda. The difference is that any spillover of terrorists and weapons will affect not Mali, but Israel, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan.

That’s Jackson Diehl, writing a few days ago and wondering why the U.S. didn’t respond to the overwhelming likelihood of an unholy battle of all against all in Syria by at least arming the more secular elements among the rebels. That’s what tonight’s announcement is basically about, though, no? The SOC isn’t being groomed as some sort of serious successor to power in Syria, it’s a political fig leaf that lets the west intervene in the fighting — ostensibly on behalf of some sort of liberal democratic government-in-waiting. Tonight’s news is just O’s way of signaling to Americans that, while we’re getting more involved over there, we’re certainly not going to make nice with any dirty terrorists. Don’t you feel relieved?

1- Jihad, defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion,” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4- A percentage of Zakat (charity money) must go towards jihad.

5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph if he rejects Islam.

8- A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Vigilante street justice and honor killing is acceptable.

10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim, but will get it for killing a Muslim.

11- Sharia never abolished slavery, sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. They must comply to Islamic law if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14- It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. But Muslims can curse non-Muslims.

15- A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or bathhouse attendants. Women in low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18- A non-Muslim cannot rule — even over a non-Muslim minority.

19- Homosexuality is punishable by death.

20- There is no age limit for marriage of girls. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and can be consummated at age 8 or 9.

21- Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

22- Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

23- There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24- A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and none of them have a right to divorce him — even if he is polygamous.

26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

27- A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

28- The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

29- A woman loses custody if she remarries.

30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

31- A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

32- A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body, which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Not all Sharia schools allow the face of a woman exposed.

33- A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife at the time he caught her in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women, since the man “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”

34-It is obligatory for a Muslim to lie if the purpose is obligatory. That means that for the sake of abiding with Islam’s commandments, such as jihad, a Muslim is obliged to lie and should not have any feelings of guilt or shame associated with this kind of lying.

I know Assad is a bad guy and he works with Iran, but the people we are about to support are worse. Assad, because he is an Alawite, at least lets Christians, other infidels, women to have some kind of life. The people we are going to support are not just going to slaughter the Alawites, but all the other infidels. Women’s lives will be much worse. Plus the people we will be helping will turn around and wage war against Israel, the United States, and based on one youtube video of the Syrian “freedom fighters” I watched….Spain!

Syria is not a country, it is just something that was created on a chalk board by the French and British after WWI. I have no idea what we hope to accomplish from all this. There is not strategic reason to get involved in Syria, except for maybe the chemical weapons, which would have been safe as long as Assad’s forces had them. Do you really think he is going to give them to some Sunni Jihadist group that wants to kill him? Thus by intervening and helping the Sunni forces we are basically making the chemical weapons stockpiles more likely to be used by Assad or by making it easier to fall into the hands of the very people we don’t want to have them.

This is just madness. When are we going to learn! You would think our experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt would have taught us something about the Islamic world…yet here we are about to add Syria to the list.

That’s Jackson Diehl, writing a few days ago and wondering why the U.S. didn’t respond to the overwhelming likelihood of an unholy battle of all against all in Syria by at least arming the more secular elements among the rebels.

Look, I have an idea.

The Rifle Library.

Stay with me.

We put all the weapons in The Rifle Library, and we hand out Library Cards to the entire population of the world. This way, we can activate the cards of the people we want to arm this week, and let them check out the weapons for a week, say — and then to change who we are arming, we can just change whose card is activated. And we can just use the same weapons this way too, instead of having to give everyone a weapon, which would be a lot cheaper.

Syria’s Opposition being recognized means that the “O” is now certain enough that Islamic Supremacists will be in charge when the smoke clears, and not the Seculars.
Just like Libya.
Recognition was waiting on that point, and only that point.

What really annoys me is for eight years of Bush no-one ever used the term “chemical weapons” it had to be Weapons of Mass Destruction so that all the dimwits would think everybody meant nukes.
And it was our guy Colin Powell who started the idiocy, so now Saddam’s WMD’s are Assad’s chemical weapons and all the usual suspects have their panties in a bunch.
I don’t see any good guys in this script and I’m hoping that both sides get wacked.

There were plenty of news reports of Saddam moving chemical weapons into Syria in 2002 and 03 before we invaded. The Marines detected precursors in the waters of the Euphrates proving that chemical weapons had been dumped into the river.

Guess which other Arab country has known stockpiles of Chemical weapons…yep it’s Egypt.

But my earlier point was that the term Weapons of Mass Destruction was in my experience only used by diplomats who wanted to avoid any actual discussion of what they were really talking about. Our talkers try to make a moral equivalence between nuclear and chemical weapons because we don’t have chemical weapons.

But the only way we were ever going to look legit in the eyes of the mainstream misinformers is if we found something out of Doctor Strangelove (the 500 tons of enriched uranium that we did find, not to be confused with Joe Wilson’s nonexistent 500 tons of uranium doesn’t count)

This is just madness. When are we going to learn! You would think our experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt would have taught us something about the Islamic world…yet here we are about to add Syria to the list.

William Eaton on December 11, 2012 at 10:00 PM

I think Libya and Egypt have turned out the way The One wanted–especially Egypt. (Have you seen even one cent deducted from the money that we give Egypt for the embassy attack?)

wondering why the U.S. didn’t respond to the overwhelming likelihood of an unholy battle of all against all in Syria by at least arming the more secular elements among the rebels

Because we’re counting on Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to arm the rebels, and they don’t have the same qualms about Islamists taking over.

Bush the nation-builder; Obama the destroyer.

What is Obama’s plan? He does not know or care.

Seriously? I mean, I’m glad Bush was a two-termer, but comparing Bush — opposed to using “nation building and the military in the same sentence” — to Obama, and critiquing the latter for not having a plan…. Well…. If 2016 sees a President who does have a decent plan when conducting regime change, it’ll be the first one in a loooong time.

And history will record him as a hero..
It doesn’t matter what the outcome will be..
Electrongod on December 11, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Of course. Once again, the “pro-democracy Muslim coalition” Obama imagined into existence and staked America’s foreign policy on will (unexpectedly) be taken over by the tiny handful of “bad” Muslims.

Obama is the perfect liberal; he never fights the good fight; all he ever does is talk the good talk. Granted, everything Obama has touched in his entire life has turned to crap. But that’s just because the world always lets him down. Everything that goes wrong is always the world’s fault and never Obama’s.

The Small Footprint doctrine: “Speak loudly, and carry a little stick.”

Um, yeah, since the Syrians had a legitimate election and the rebellious opposition was legally elected and all. Oh, that hasn’t happened yet? My bad. Dear leader tossed the rule of law under the bus again.

I suspect our dear African American leader is also satisfied with the UN election of Mauritania, a country that allows 800,000 of its citizens to live as slaves, as Vice-President of the UN Human Rights Council.